![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
GNS / Big Model Open House
Hi.
I know that a fair share of RPG theory interested folks read this blog.
I'd like to test my own understanding of GNS / Big Model.
So:
I will answer any questions about the Big Model or GNS that you have, if you ask them in response to this post or in a private e-mail to me.
It would help if you would first read the essays here and here. These other ones won't hurt. Just the top part of the last two is fine.
a few ground rules:
1) I'm going to try to explain a theoretical model to you. I don't want to argue whether it is right or wrong. You can come to your own conclusions about that. If you post, I will assume that you are trying to understand the model, no more, no less.
1a) If you want to destroy the model, may I suggest that understanding it is a good first step?
1b) So no "that's stupid," stupid though it may be. "That doesn't make sense, please explain it a different way" is fine.
2) I will not diagnose GNS goals of games I've never played. I will not discuss any theory applying to LARPs, because they are complicated. I will not discuss books, movies, plays, improv theatre, ballet, or any other artform in the context of GNS, because doing so is stupid. I will discuss games which I have played, as examples, but pretty much only at the request of the GM who ran said game.
2a) If you ask about the GNS of your game, do not take a diagnosis that isn't what you want it to be to be an insult. It isn't.
3) I may add ground rules as things progress.
I know that a fair share of RPG theory interested folks read this blog.
I'd like to test my own understanding of GNS / Big Model.
So:
I will answer any questions about the Big Model or GNS that you have, if you ask them in response to this post or in a private e-mail to me.
It would help if you would first read the essays here and here. These other ones won't hurt. Just the top part of the last two is fine.
a few ground rules:
1) I'm going to try to explain a theoretical model to you. I don't want to argue whether it is right or wrong. You can come to your own conclusions about that. If you post, I will assume that you are trying to understand the model, no more, no less.
1a) If you want to destroy the model, may I suggest that understanding it is a good first step?
1b) So no "that's stupid," stupid though it may be. "That doesn't make sense, please explain it a different way" is fine.
2) I will not diagnose GNS goals of games I've never played. I will not discuss any theory applying to LARPs, because they are complicated. I will not discuss books, movies, plays, improv theatre, ballet, or any other artform in the context of GNS, because doing so is stupid. I will discuss games which I have played, as examples, but pretty much only at the request of the GM who ran said game.
2a) If you ask about the GNS of your game, do not take a diagnosis that isn't what you want it to be to be an insult. It isn't.
3) I may add ground rules as things progress.
no subject
If "having that character continue to do her thing in relation to the environment around her" includes continuing to evolve and be affected internally, that covers what I'm interested in. I would be irritated by something/someone who seemed to try to negate rather than influence the character -- i.e. someone who said 'it's impossible for your character to be the way they are.' The question, to me, is whether that forced change or critical analysis of the character's belief can be addressed through the character's perspective. I'm not interested in trying to insist a character's belief's are right and then be challenged on an out of game level to defend or change them -- I'm more interested in having them be 'wrong' from my outside perspective and seeing where they lead and how they mutate.
I know my character construction and presentation cannot be perfect, so I would be annoyed if someone picked at it as a hollow-shell fictional construct. I want them to accept that I'm trying to make this a 'consistent' person and address certain issues with them, and cut some slack as necessary.
At the end of the game I will step back and say, "Wow, I've really worked through how these kinds of issues can affect someone and be addressed. I understand people dealing with them better." (Or maybe even...."I understand myself better.") That seems broader than the single-character understanding, but less abstract than the Narrativist one you mention. Or is it just a different way of phrasing the Narrativist one?
I want to extrapolate/intuit, rather than abstract. Is that a difference that has any place here?
I do enjoy feeling I really understand a character who is different from myself, but that leaves out the whole development portion which is really what I find most satisfying all in all.
Can you explain more what 'opportunities to make a premise statement' really means? If I need to go back and reread some of the articles, feel free to point me -- I wasn't able to read them all thoroughly.
no subject
That is entirely a different phrasing.
Now I have some questions for you.
What sort of things, if anything, should be done during prep to create this kind of outcome of play? Whose responsibility is it to handle each of those (yourself, the GM, other players)?
What sort of things, if anything, should be done during play to create this kind of outcome? Whose responsibility..?
If this sort of outcome does not come out of play, whose fault is it? Anyone's?
What is required for you, personally, to consider a game (or game session) "a failure?" A success?
yrs--
--Ben
PS
I want to extrapolate/intuit, rather than abstract. Is that a difference that has any place here?
Another difference in phrasing, I'm afraid.
Can you explain more what 'opportunities to make a premise statement' really means? If I need to go back and reread some of the articles, feel free to point me -- I wasn't able to read them all thoroughly.
Check out the beginning of the Narrativism essay, the section under the Story Now header is a good place to start, although the section titled "story" above it is also useful.
no subject
You haven't answered my questions below. Still want to play?
What sort of things, if anything, should be done during prep to create this kind of outcome of play? Whose responsibility is it to handle each of those (yourself, the GM, other players)?
What sort of things, if anything, should be done during play to create this kind of outcome? Whose responsibility..?
If this sort of outcome does not come out of play, whose fault is it? Anyone's?
What is required for you, personally, to consider a game (or game session) "a failure?" A success?
yrs--
--Ben